COMM-ORG Papers 2009 · 2012. 6. 4. · COMM-ORG Papers Volume 15, 2009 Papers Homepage CDCs and the Myth of the Organizing-Development Dialectic Joyce Mandell [email protected]

COMM-ORG Papers

Volume 15, 2009

PapersHomepage

CDCs and the Myth ofthe Organizing-Development DialecticJoyce Mandell

[email protected]

ContentsSummaryIntroductionThe Community in Community DevelopmentThe Opposition of Organizing and DevelopmentThe Integration of Organizing and DevelopmentThe Case of Lawrence Community WorksLessons from LCW

COMM-ORG Papers 2009 http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers2009/mandell.htm

1 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

ReferencesAbout the AuthorReader Comments (opens in new window)

SummaryIn the literature on community developmentcorporations, critics claim that CDCs do notrepresent the interests of target neighborhoodsbecause of an ingrown tension between adevelopment and organizing agenda. Indebunking the myth of the organizing-development dialectic, this case study of a CDCin Lawrence, Massachusetts shows how a CDCcan effectively spearhead development basedon community organizing efforts andempowerment of neighbors. Based on 95 hoursof participant observation from 2006 – 2007 and29 in depth interviews of residents and staff, thisstudy describes the interplay of organizing anddevelopment for this CDC.

In 1998, national community development expertBill Traynor returned to his hometown of


2 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Lawrence, Massachusetts to head an almostdefunct community development corporation.Ten years later, the newly renamed LawrenceCommunity Works (LCW) has completed animpressive array of development projects butmore importantly, has seen an uncommonly highlevel of engagement among the residents of itstarget neighborhood including over 500residents attending the annual meeting to vote incontested board elections. Neighbors are outthere cleaning up alleys, planning parks, goingto Washington DC to lobby for funds.

LCW demonstrates how CDCs can integrateorganizing together with development so thatdevelopment projects are shaped from theground up by residents themselves. ForLawrence Community Works (LCW), thequestion is not whether to base development onwhat the community wants. Organizing “before,during and after” bricks and mortar is a givenbasic mode of operating. Key findings of thisstudy indicate that other CDCs can engage incommunity organizing for neighborhood drivendevelopment in two ways: 1)cultivating adiversified funding portfolio and 2)by hiring


3 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Executive Directors and staff with organizingknowledge and experience to create anorganizing culture.

IntroductionThe community development movement hascome a long way since that cold day in February,1966 when Senator Robert Kennedy took a tourof the Bedford Stuyvesant area of New York,making the promises and setting the stage forthe development of the first generation of CDCs.In terms of physical development, thismovement has seen much success in its short45 plus year history. By 1970, less than 100community based development organizationsexisted. According to the 2005 CDC census ofthe National Congress of Community EconomicDevelopment (NCCED), the national arm of theCDC movement, 4600 CDCs have created over1,252,000 units of affordable housing passingthe million mark in 2003, developed $125 millionworth of commercial and industrial space andare responsible for creating 774,000 new jobs.


4 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

CDC advocates point to these tangible “bricksand mortar” assets (housing, commercialdevelopment, new businesses and revivifiedmain streets, new community gardens) thatCDCs have developed. CDCs are often viewedas market enhancers, taking the first steps toinvest in distressed neighborhoods that areconsidered market risks. Unlike private investorswho evaluate a project solely on its profitpotential, CDCs as place based non profitorganizations, have an extra mission: to stabilizeand improve local neighborhoods. Turningvacant lots or dilapidated housing into rehabbed,attractive housing, community green space orviable commercial districts creates a moreattractive environment that may pump the primefor more private investment

Critics of the CDC movement cite CDCs asenhancers of a capitalist system which isnaturally composed of haves and have nots.(Stoecker, 1997, 2003; Roelofs in Faber andMcCarthy, 2005) In CDC target neighborhoods,the question remains: have the have notsbecome at all better off? According to a study of


5 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

43 CDCs in 1999, poverty levels had increasedin CDC target communities where residents lostsignificant buying power. (Murphy andCunningham, 2003: 41) What little urbanregeneration that occurred was due to an influxof middle class residents moving into urbanneighborhoods According to this critique, CDCsstave off the discontent and unrest of residentsof poor communities by doing just enough tokenprojects in a neighborhood. In this way, CDCsare sometimes seen as “an importantsupplement to the free enterprise system.”(Roelofs in Faber and McCarthy, 2005:66)

CDCs are not undertaking a value neutralenterprise. In neighborhoods that are seeingincreased property values, Rachel Bratt andWilliam Rohe describe the phenomenon of“NIMBY in the neighborhoods”, a backlashagainst affordable housing for people with lowincome or people with a social service need.(Rohe and Bratt, 2003:46) In this situation, iratehomeowners or property investors conflict withCDCs that choose to represent the interests oflow income residents by creating affordablehousing opportunities that will prevent


6 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

displacement from the neighborhood. CDCshave traditionally operated in very distressedcommunities and could easily represent theinterests of low income residents whopredominated. However, what happens whenthe neighborhood begins to improve, increasingthe number of other neighborhood stakeholdersbesides residents with low income? Thequestion for a CDC then becomes: does thisorganization organize and represent theinterests of low income residents or does itorganize, work with and represent allstakeholders. Who is the “community” incommunity controlled development?

The Community inCommunity DevelopmentAlthough CDCs have a proven track record inbuilding physical and human capital, thequestion remains: what about ‘the community’ incommunity development, including theempowerment and participation of residents andcommunity control of the development agenda?


7 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

What exactly is community control? What is thecommunity and who is in control? There hasbeen an extensive amount of literature critiquingcommunity organizations such as CDCs for notrepresenting the community where they operateand not engaging residents in taking leadershiproles in deciding the development agenda.(Cnaan, 1991; Cummings and Glazer 1985;Stoecker 1997,2003; Sahd 2004, Warren 2001).Especially as CDCs have evolved to becomemore technically savvy housing developers,questions surface as to whether CDCs evenhave an interest in organizing and empoweringthe community. One of the more vocal critics ofthe CDC model, Randy Stoecker, declares thatCDCs operate under a myth and not reality ofcommunity control. Due to historical politicalchanges in federal funding programs, externallyfunded driven agendas, the pressure to developproduct over community process, the emphasison technical expertise and the supposedinherent tensions between communityorganizing and development, the CDCmovement has tended to move away from itspromising grassroots beginnings.


8 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

In the early years, many CDCs evolved out ofstrong local community organizing efforts –residents getting together to demand for change.However, as the movement grew and evolvedand became more successful in the technicalaspects of developing projects, CDCs becamemore technically savvy organizations. CDCs areactually buying and selling housing, developingcommercial real estate and providing services.In a sense, CDCs must function as “expert”organizations, employing a highly educated andskilled development team. Developers tend to becollege educated with technical expertise in realestate development. Where is the room for thelocal lay person? How does the technicallanguage of development close out regularpeople who attend board and committeemeetings? What are the tensions between theorganizers out in the field, listening to theneighbors and the experts working on thespread sheets in the office and meeting with thebankers? Twelvetrees asserts that “it isunrealistic to expect a CDC to be a democraticorganization in the sense that it offersopportunities to participate in decision making to


9 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

large numbers of residents”. (Twelvetrees, 1989:142) He even questions whether CDCs areprivate companies, charitable institutions, orarms of the government, and even views themas “potential predators”.

The CDC’s growing emphasis on technicalexpertise has had many negative consequencesfor the other goal of empowering and growingneighborhood leaders. Many CDCs hire staffand Executive Directors in particular for theirtechnical knowledge of development and nottheir organizing ability. In other words, CDCs arehiring developers, not organizers who care aboutthe inclusion of the community in thedevelopment process. What happens whendevelopers, not community organizers areheading up CDCs? At the onset, there isambivalence about community control andparticipation and a misunderstanding of how tofully engage the community. According to a 2003study of Executive Directors of CDCs in Detroit,Michigan, executive directors view citizenparticipation as ‘a necessary evil’ or even athreat to a potential project. (Silverman, 2003).More of an interest exists in building housing


10 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

than building ‘people’.

The Opposition ofOrganizing andDevelopmentDevelopers often do not understand howsuccessful community development work entailstwo enterprises – organizing and development.The organizing part of the work requires that theorganization find out the needs and the wants ofthe community. Does the neighborhood wantmore affordable housing, jobs, better policeprotection, or programs to keep youth off thestreets? Can some sort of common consensusemerge from the neighborhood that may behosting a variety of different people with differentperspectives? Ideally, the development goalsshould accomplish the goals that surfacethrough this kind of community process. Therehas often been a tension between organizingand development where CDC critics havequestioned whether it is structurally plausible forCDCs to organize around a local agenda.


11 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Randy Stoecker understands organizing anddevelopment as coming from two very differentand contradictory paradigms. According to thecommunity organizing model, more specificallythe conflict oriented model first promoted bySaul Alinksy, the goals of organizing are to buildpower for the have nots. Since the haves are notwanting to give up any power or resources, thepeople need to work together to confront andchallenge the power system. In communityorganizing, it is the people who organizethemselves that are most important in creatinglasting changes in the capitalist system. Incontrast, Stoecker cites the communitydevelopment model whose goal is not tochallenge and change but to work within thesystem, creating housing and development. Inorder to develop, one must not confront butcooperate with those in power to getdevelopment going. The most importantresource in this endeavor is the paid staffmember who is usually a non resident. Thedevelopment model is seen as an attempt tobring more resources into the communityaccommodating and not challenging the


12 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

capitalist system.

In this highly dualistic conception of organizingand development, Stoecker claims that CDCscan not do effective community organizing anddevelopment in the same organization. Hisclassic example of the contradiction is thedilemma posed by organizing residents in acommunity against a bank’s lending practiceswhile the developers are working on gettingfunding for a project from the same bank.Stoecker also points out the contradiction ofbeing an owner of property and an organizer.How can a CDC organize tenants in a buildingowned by the CDC when its interests are inkeeping the building as a sound investment?Stoecker writes that “CDCs are landlords and aslandlords have an interest in maintaining thefinancial solvency of the organization even ifthey are nicer about it than for profit landlords.Renters, however, have an interest inmaintaining the affordability of their housing.This creates a structural antagonism that dividesthe CDC from the community.”(1997:9) Thistension is analogous to a company organizing itsown workers into a union instead of the workers


13 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

organizing on their own to negotiate with thecompany. In Stoecker’s view, he would do awaywith the CDC model as it has evolved andreplace it with small community organizinggroups and large high-capacity CDCs that focussolely on doing the development projects thatcome out of the organizing process of theorganizing groups.

The Integration ofOrganizing andDevelopmentThough it is important to recognize thechallenges that CDCs face in organizingneighborhood residents into truly participatoryorganizations and engaging people in the publicsphere, it is just as important to look at the goodnews. CDCs have been and can continue to bestrong proponents of community controlleddevelopment. CDCs can do organizing. CDCscan do organizing and development successfullyunder one roof (Hadrian, 1988; Traynor, 2002)


14 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Offering ‘hope and caution,” Bill Traynor notesthe current shift in community developmentpractice. Community based developmentorganizations are now seen as “communitybuilders.” According to Traynor, CDCs face thechallenge of building a culture of organizing inorganizations that are resistant to opening upthe channels of broad based participation indecision making and are used to an emphasison the technical expertise of real estatedevelopment. He also cites a need to developindustry standards so that there can be arepertoire of best practices for CDC organizingand community building.

The Massachusetts Association of CommunityDevelopment Corporations (MACDC), theMassachusetts statewide arm of the CDCmovement, in partnership with the LocalIntitiatives Support Corp (LISC) of Bostonestablished the Ricanne Hadrian Initiative forCommunity Organizing (RHICO). The RHICOprogram, in operation from 1997 to 2006 in threephases, offered direct grants to a select group of10 – 12 CDCs for hiring community organizers,


15 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

on site technical assistance, peer learning,trainings in community organizing anddocumentation and evaluation of the projectincluding the creation of a power journaldetailing stories of organizing campaigns forsocial change in the voices of staff and leadersworking out in the field. One of the core beliefsof the program was that CDCs must center theirdevelopment work on community organizing andcommunity building. According to RHICO,

By involving area residents from theoutset, a CDC can anticipate street crime,drug dealing, and related communityissues. Building a strong, organized baseof community residents will provide theclout necessary for a CDC to winadditional resources for its community,even as political leadership changes.Likewise, a community organizingapproach will enable a CDC to respond tocommunity priorities when choosingdevelopment projects. Finally, since mostCDCs operate in diverse communities,successful organizing will allow each CDCto tap the participation of new residents


16 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

and to achieve a diversity that accuratelyreflects its community’s profile and views.(MACDC RHICO literature)

The 4 million dollar RHICO initiative had anarray of funders in addition to Local InitiativeSupport Collaborative (LISC) including theBoston Foundation, Annie E. Casey, Ford,Rockefeller, Surdna, and Edna McConnell ClarkFoundations. It was believed that RHICO couldserve as a national model of how to centerdevelopment work on community organizing,thereby inspiring the CDC movement to return totheir grassroots past with an emphasis on socialchange.

During RHICO’s nine year history, funded CDCsengaged in highly visible and successfulorganizing campaigns, each with a differentflavor or spin. A couple of CDCs organized withresidents to get the MBTA public transportationline to re-open stops in their neighborhoods. Thestations had been closed due to a combinationof fear, racism and elitism according to localresidents, and the trains now sped past thoseneighborhoods to stops in wealthier and


17 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

predominantly Caucasian neighborhoods furtherout of Boston. Another CDC organized a groupof residents into a Committee to Limit UniversityExpansion (CLUE) in order to protest thecontinued expansion and encroachment of alocal university that was gobbling up much of theaffordable housing in the neighborhood.Residents of another neighborhood were upsetabout a bed bug infestation in many apartmentbuildings and worked together to get thelandlords and the city to remedy the situation.

The Case of LawrenceCommunity WorksIn 1998, RHICO bestowed a generous grant to astruggling CDC in the mill town of Lawrence,Massachusetts. National communitydevelopment expert Bill Traynor had justreturned back to his hometown to head thealmost defunct community developmentcorporation. Ten years later, the newly renamedLawrence Community Works (LCW) hascompleted an impressive array of development


18 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

projects but more importantly, has seen anuncommonly high level of engagement amongthe residents of its target neighborhood includingover 500 residents attending the annual meetingto vote in contested board elections. Neighborsare out there cleaning up alleys, planning parks,going to Washington DC to lobby for funds.

In 2008, just ten years after this new beginningfor the CDC, one can see the impressive resultsof the work:

22 full time staff people currently work atLCWLCW brought in over $12 million dollars worthof investment into the neighborhood fordevelopment projects. Developed 25 units ofaffordable housing in the North Commonneighborhood including 17 affordable rentalapartments in the Reviviendo Family Housingproject and four two family owner occupiedhomes in the Summer Street HomeownershipprojectOrganized residents to plan and develop twoparks – the Scarito park and the Reviviendoplayground


19 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Developed a Family Asset Building programwhich offers classes in GED and ESL, firsttime homeownership, credit counseling, andmatched savings.Developed a new model of organizing peoplethrough the creation of “neighbor circles”where neighbors get together for a series ofthree dinner meetings to get to know eachother and to work on potential projects in theneighborhood. As of 2007, 38 neighborcircleshave been formed, resulting in the peoplepower to renovate parks, clean and beautifyalleyways, organize block parties, urge thecity to change parking policies and increasetrash pickup.Purchased the St. Laurence School todevelop Our House, a community centerdedicated to the education of youth in designand technology.Partnering with a youth organization, createdMovement City, a leadership developmentopportunity for Lawrence youth to learndesign, performing arts and technology andlearn leadership skills.Created a five month leadership trainingprogram called Poder (Spanish for “power”)


20 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

where residents learn about Lawrencehistory, social change work, and powerdynamics, culminating in a communityorganizing project.Cultivated a membership of over 1200residents

Lawrence Community Works serves as a modelin the movement for organizing truly communitycontrolled development. Based on 95 hours ofparticipant observation from 2006 – 2007 and 29in depth interviews of residents and staff, thisethnographic study of Lawrence CommunityWorks (LCW) demonstrates the workableinterplay between organizing and development.Although the critics are correct that the CDCmovement on the whole, has shifted to a“development only” agenda that tends todisregard organizing for resident drivenplanning, it is wrong to conclude that CDCs cannot structurally engage in effective organizingand development simultaneously. The myth ofthe organizing/development dialectic preventspractitioners and academics from realizing thepotential of housing development and organizingthat can work synergistically under one roof.


21 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Ultimately, CDCs can operate in two distinctways – as primary developers or as organizer-developers. The critique of CDCs asdisempowering, technically focusedorganizations is truly a critique of this first modelof operation. The second model basesdevelopment decisions and planning on aninclusive process that organizes residentstakeholders first. In this model, technical staffwork hand in hand with residents to createworkable neighborhood plans so that residentsare intimately involved in development projectsbefore, during and after the bricks and mortar. Indescribing LCW’s ground-up planning process,an LCW housing developer staff personindicates his bias towards this second model ofoperation:

We use the network approach internallyamong departments and network amongmembers and even beyond that. (It is)instrumental in the work that we havebeen able to achieve so far. I hear in otherorganizations that real estate andorganizing are banging heads and I don’tunderstand that. Maybe, it’s because of


22 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

my mind set … to do it as we are doing itnow. (It) makes for a stronger project withmuch greater benefit to the membership. Idon’t understand the turfdom. Maybe it ismy bias that this is the best way to do it.(Interview, June 19, 2007)

An LCW resident member describes the LCWapproach to development:

Transformation is happening block byblock, neighborhood by neighborhood.The organizers are finding out what peoplewant to see. We don’t build a house onthat corner because we think it is a greatbuildable lot. We engage the folks that liveand work around that corner. We say tothem, “Do you want to see a house on thatcorner? Do you want to see a house onthat corner? What is the best use of thatcorner?” We do design charettes toaddress stuff like that. The alleyways area huge undertaking. We don’t just go in.We don’t just plant flowers and walk away.We ask the neighbors,” what do you wantto see when you look at the window? Do


23 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

you need it to be paved to have vehicleaccess? Can it be a pedestrian walkway?Can we connect it to make an urban trailsystem?” We talk to people. If you aretalking about going into a neighborhoodand building in a neighborhood, then youneed to make sure the neighborhoodwants that there, whether it is a strip mallor affordable housing rental units…Don’twalk in there like “I’m on a knight on thewhite horse and I’m going to save yourneighborhood.” It’s about, “hi, my name isLesley and I’ve noticed that there are abunch of vacant lots here. We’d like tobring together a group of residents to findout what you all would like to see there.Let’s talk about it. (Interview, October 12,2006)

At LCW, the Director of organizing alwaysparticipates on the real estate and housingcommittee. Unlike the antagonism betweendevelopment and organizing departments inmany other CDCs, real estate and organizingstaff at LCW meet regularly to ensure that theyare working together cooperatively.


24 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Development commences with resident andmember input, organizing charettes andneighborcircles to come together around anissue of a vacant lot or a problematic property.Perhaps, in these community discussions, allstakeholders in the neighborhood are broughttogether to generate ideas about the future ofthe site. Real estate staff helps to facilitate thedesign process, turning around ideas from thecharette into workable conceptual drawings anddiagrams based on the community input.Sometimes, there are certain limitations on thereal estate end. For example, zoning is notalways suited for single family detached housingin some neighborhoods. Usually, there is atransition from pure neighborhood organizing tothe nuts and bolts of development. Yet, withinthe time of developing a project, a resident ledcommittee forms to guide the process. Forexample, a core set of neighborhood leadersworked side by side with the development teamfor over seven years it took to complete the ‘OurHouse’ community center. This committee waseven instrumental in fundraising for the project.

Generally, LCW will build what the community


25 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

wants if it is affordable and financing can bearranged even if staff has a different vision. Forexample, the real estate department saw a goodopportunity to build housing on a vacant lot onthe corner of Summer and Newbury Street. Thelot was big. Additionally, there was a demand forhousing in the community. However, during theorganizing process, resident abutters wanted tosee the lot turned into a neighborhood park.Since it was clear that the park was desiredmore than housing for that particular space,LCW build the Reviviendo Park and playground,working with residents to design it from the bareground up.

Participation opportunities abound in the streetin the nitty gritty planning of developmentprojects in the neighborhood. Hundreds of NorthCommon residents have taken part in theplanning of local development projects. BrookStreet residents in their ‘neighborcircle’ wereinstrumental in the planning and development ofScarito Park, working in collaboration withGroundwork Lawrence and LCW. Otherresidents attended and testified at publichearings to secure funding, site control and


26 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

other approvals for the Reviviendo FamilyHousing project, the renovation of three vacanthistorical buildings and one empty lot into 17affordable apartment units. Neighborhoodcommunity gardeners on Union Street and otherlocal residents sat down with planners to designthe Union- Mechanic Street project. The vacantlots were primarily used for squatter communitygardens, parking and illegal trash dumping. Thegardeners wanted to keep their gardens butother neighbors wanted housing on the lots.Although neighbors were divided over whetherthere should be gardens or housing, the twogroups were able to come together over thedrafting table to come up with a win-win plan forbuilding nine new homes (four duplexes and onesingle family) and preserving extra space forcommunity gardening. In this way, theorganizers served as consensus builders duringa contentious planning process.

Usually, organizing residents together first leadsto the development of a new project. However,LCW has also begun to explore the oppositeorder: using a new housing development projectas a mooring to create opportunities to organize


27 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

residents. For example, in South Lawrence in aneighborhood in which LCW has not workedpreviously, LCW had a chance to purchase aproperty on Farnham Street that consisted ofthree vacant triple deckers and one partiallyoccupied two family unit. The CDC purchasedthe property in order to rehab it to makeaffordable rental units. LCW organizers then hadthe opportunity to canvass the neighborhood todiscuss the idea of revitalizing the abandonedhomes and were met with enthusiasm andsupport for the project. The project did notbubble up through the neighborcircle processbut the project may result in a neighborcircle inthe future as connections are made between theCDC and the surrounding neighborhood.According to the LCW housing staff person, “wedidn’t hear one person say no. Everyone said,’It’s about time. It’s great that you are here.” InJune 2007, the organizing department didextensive outreach in the neighborhood andinvited residents to a new member orientation onsite at the Farnham Street property, having abarbecue, music and getting-to-know-youexercises as a way to build connections andcommunity on the street. This event was well


28 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

attended with over 30 – 40 people and verysuccessful with local neighbors talking to eachother as neighbors and planning to start a localneighborcircle. In this example, LCW isdeveloping a new model of connectingorganizing and development – identifying aproject in a new neighborhood and then doingoutreach in the neighborhood to invite people toparticipate in the LCW network. In this approach,a real estate project can serve as the startingpoint for network building and communityorganizing.

In the ‘development only’ model of CDCs,projects are dictated by available fundingopportunities, guided by technical staff andapproved by a small group of local boardmembers. In this way, it is not surprising thatCDCs, as other private developers who do notincorporate grassroots participation in planning,may potentially encounter resident apathy andeven resistance to CDC neighborhood projects.In contrast, in LCW’s organizing-developmentmodel, CDCs undertake development projects,programs and organizing campaigns that areresident led. True resident ownership of the


29 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

projects and the CDC itself, an increased placebased commitment and a sense ofneighborhood community and solidarity are thebenefits of following this organizing-developmentpath. Residents’ naming of the newly completedcommunity center, ‘Our House” or ‘NuestraCasa’, demonstrates this kind of projectownership. Other residents explain thisphenomenon:

I remember working with one of the youngpeople, one of my clients. I wanted him tobe part of Movement City (the LCW youtharm) so I drove him around and I said,“That’s ours” and I showed him ‘OurHouse’. I go to the Scarito Homes and say,“That’s ours. And this is ours too.” Hesays,” So what are you to thisorganization?” And I say, “I am a member.”“But you are saying that ‘That’s yours’.”“Yes, it is mine. It is MINE because I haveownership of that project, making ithappen with my participation, with myadvocating, attending things, payingattention to what is going on in the city,talking about the program. That house


30 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

there is MINE. And if you become amember of this organization, it is going tobe yours! As you drive around with yourfriends, you can tell your friends, thatbuilding over there is ours.” (She laughs).That is MINE because what we build in theneighborhood belongs to us. If it is mine, Itake care of it. This is my city, myneighborhood. I think that sense ofownership is what makes this organizationa success because this is ourorganization. We belong. We do good stufftogether. That sense of belonging, ofownership is what makes it work.(Interview, June 30, 2007)

One of the good things about LCW is theyget everyone involved from the bottom up.What parts you want to play with it. Theywant community to see it as theirs. Tenyears from now, you can tell your friendsor your family or who is visiting, “I helpedthe planning of this project and they tooksome of my idea and her idea and his ideaand turned it into this.” You want to be apart of the very bone and marrow of it. You


31 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

want to say this is something that I helpedcreate. I helped to physically buildReviviendo Park. I remember going outclearing the ground, planting the trees. So,you can really say, “I helped build this. Ihelped the design of it – where should thatbe, where should that be. No, we want thatover there and not there.” (Interview,October 12, 2006)

Community organizing is the primary buildingblock for all LCW development work. Organizingis such a priority in this model that LCW’s firsthired fulltime staff person was the Director ofCommunity Organizing. Utilizing this organizing-development alternative paradigm, this CDC hasbeen able to see a large level of engagement ofresidents in their target neighborhood. Over 500local residents attend the annual meeting andvote in contested CDC board elections. In adecentralized network though, the board is notthe only source of leadership opportunity. Othermembers are organizing clean-ups, planningpolitical campaigns and registering voters,implementing asset building programs, attendingdesign charettes, recruiting new members,


32 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

writing press releases or doing radio shows.

Lessons from LCWDemonstrating a successful example ofdevelopment based on organizing principles andpractices, the LCW case study reveals the mythof the organizing-development dialectic that hasbeen prevalent in academic and practicediscourses. CDCs can be effective organizersand developers. Indeed, community organizingcan bring about development owned by thepeople who live in a neighborhood. Residentscan be empowered to envision and plan theirneighborhood space. Here are three practicesthat can be replicated in communities in order todevelop a democratic and participatorydevelopment CDC:

1. Hire an Executive Director who hasknowledge of and commitment to communityorganizing:

As Executive Director of LCW, Bill Traynor hasbeen able to permeate an organizing model of


33 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

development because he himself is a trainedcommunity organizer. He joined in his family’swork painting houses until age 25 and attendedUniversity of Massachusetts of Lowell, studyingradical Marxism with sociologists there. Hehimself became a community organizer for MassFair Share, an Alinsky inspired state widechapter organization organizing aroundconsumer protection issues. Eventually, hecompleted a Masters Degree In Human ServicesManagement at Brandeis and became the firstexecutive director of Coalition for A BetterAcre(CBA), a community developmentcorporation in Lowell, Massachusetts. In his roleat CBA, he was instrumental in weldingorganizing to development, advocating for astrong community organizing component ofresidents of the Acre to shape and advocate forthe development of their neighborhood. Hearticulated this vision of centering developmenton organizing efforts in a series of articles hewrote geared towards community developers outin the field.

These articles served to give him nationalvisibility and a national reputation, leading him to


34 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

a myriad of consulting jobs first at CommunityTraining and Assistance Corporation (CTAC)and later in his own firm of nine years,Neighborhood Partners. He was fortunate tohave a wide range of consulting jobs – fromworking with Dudley Street NeighborhoodInitiative to advise on their widespreadcommunity planning process, helping MikeEichler shape the theory behind consensusorganizing for the Consensus OrganizingInstitute, to advising the Annie E CaseyFoundation’s Rebuilding Communities Initiativeby working with funded sites developing residentdriven community revitalization efforts in Detroit,Boston, Washington, DC, Philadelphia andDenver. In 1998, he received a Loeb Fellowshipfrom Harvard and studied technological designand its implications for urban planning.

Although it is impossible to clone Bill Traynor,CDCs can hire an Executive Director who notonly is committed to organizing baseddevelopment but also is grounded in the theoryand practice of different methods of communityorganizing including the network centriccommunity building approach. The Executive


35 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Director is key in setting the tone and thepriorities of the organization. Without a strongcommitment to basing development on what theresidents organized in the neighborhood want tosee, then an Executive Director will beresponsible for steering the organization to thecommon “development only” or “developmentfirst” type of CDC. In this way, an ExecutiveDirector who is able to let go of his or her ownpower to others in the network who will shapethe environment, has the dual qualities ofhumility, and inner strength. Ideally, a Directoralso can bring technical knowledge ofdevelopment to the organization so that he orshe can adequately oversee the developmentand organizing parts of the work. However,primary importance is placed on the delicateknowledge and commitment to organizing.Technical know–how can always be hired in tothe organization.

2. Ensure open nominating and fair electionsof board of directors of the CDC:

The high rates of ownership of LCW are in factdue to the democratic nature of how board


36 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

members are elected. Board membersrepresenting the neighborhood are not chosenor personally selected by a small group ofleaders. Open nomination slips are mailed to allnetwork members. All members vote fornominated candidates in often contestedelections at the annual meeting in December. Inthis way, elected in an open, transparent and fairprocess, the board is seen as truerepresentatives of neighborhood interests.

3. Maintain a diversified funding portfolio:

One of the reasons why CDCs have beencritiqued in the literature is that if they aredependent on government sources for operatingsupport, they may not willing to jeopardize theirfunding by organizing residents to challenge thelocal civic status quo. Not wanting to “bite thehand that feeds it”, a CDC becomes a moreconservative vehicle, almost an extension ofgovernment itself.

LCW has not had this problem of public fundingpreventing activism because 95% of itsoperating budget comes from private sources


37 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

including private foundations that support theLCW model, private donors and private banks.Public funds accounting for less than 5% of thebudget include contracted real estatedevelopment fees, community developmentblock grant funds, Community HousingDevelopment Operation (CHODO) operatingsupport and HOME funds. LCW manages risk bydiversifying its funding sources and notdepending on any one sector for support.Although it is important to have a minimumpublic investment to show that the city buys in tothe work that the CDC is doing and publicfunding can sometimes be a steady source ofincome, one of the LCW resource developersadmitted:

I don’t want to ever be in a situation wherethe city says, you do this or we are goingto yank your funding. If they say that, Iwould like to be able to say, (Forget) you.(Interview, October 11, 2007)

In this way, LCW has become adept at targetingspecific sources for specific functions of thenetwork. In order to maintain freedom of action,


38 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

the organizing work is only funded throughprivate foundations and donors, never publicmoney that may restrict activity. The resourcedevelopment department is looking at publicfunding, corporate support and private donors tofund Movement City and other youth relatedparts of the network. Additionally, LCW cultivatesrelationships with banks to fund the assetbuilding activities of FAB, not only theirfoundation but also their marketing dollars sinceFAB through its homeownership and financialeducation work link participants to themainstream financial world.

One staff person involved in the strategicplanning of LCW’s resource development,lamenting the constant need for non profits inthe United States to “beg” for money, advicesnew organizations to learn how to not give upand to “hustle” for support:

It’s about HUSTLE. If you are not askingsomeone for money because you do not fittheir guidelines anymore or you haveoutgrown them, you are asking someoneelse for money and hopefully you are


39 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

asking 300 people. You are alwayssearching for new people to ask for moneyand new sources of support. I can’t thinkof a non profit out there that is selfsustaining. We exist because of marketfailure in the capitalist system. We existbecause this system does not pay for thethings that people actually need for ahealthy functioning, somewhat civilizedsociety. We always have to ask people formoney – the government, individuals,corporations, private foundations. That’sthe reality of the non profit world. People inEurope think we are crazy! There was nota need for a private foundation in Franceand Europe because the people therebelieve the government needs to take careof the needs of its citizens! So, they fundthat stuff! (Interview, October 11, 2007)

In this discussion of the community organizingand development practices that can bereplicated in other cities and states, it istheoretically possible to see that one can movebeyond Lawrence and Lawrence CommunityWorks to use this model in other CDCs. CDC


40 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

practitioners must not buy into the myth of theorganizing-development dialectic. In this way,the LCW case study is a salient example of thepower and promise of community organizing andresident driven development.

ReferencesAlinsky, Saul D. 1946. Reveille for Radicals ..Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago press.

------.1971. Rules for Radicals; a Practical Primerfor Realistic Radicals. New York: RandomHouse.

Arnstein, Sherry. July 1969. "A Ladder of CitizenParticipation." JAIP 35:216-224.

Barber, Benjamin R. 1984. Strong Democracy :Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Bellah, Robert N. 1986. Habits of the Heart :Individualism and Commitment in American Life.New York: Harper & Row.


41 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Bobo, Kimberley A., Steve Max, Jackie Kendalland Midwest Academy. 2001. Organizing forSocial Change : Midwest Academy Manual forActivists. Santa Ana, Calif.: Seven Locks Press.

Boyte, Harry C. 1990. CommonWealth : AReturn to Citizen Politics. New York; London:Free Press; Collier Macmillan.

------.2004. Everyday Politics : ReconnectingCitizens and the Public Life. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bratt, Rachel G. 1997. "CDCs: ContributionsOutweigh Contradictions, a Reply to RandyStoecker." Journal of Urban Affairs 19:23-8.

Bratt, Rachel G. and William Rohe. 2004."Organizational Changes among CDCs:Assessing the Impacts and Navigating theChallenges." Journal of Urban Affairs 26:197 -220.

Bright, Elise M. 2000. Reviving America'sForgotten Neighborhoods : An Investigation ofInner City Revitalization Efforts. New York:


42 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Garland Pub.

Bruyn, Severyn T. H. and James Meehan. 1987.Beyond the Market and the State : NewDirections in Community Development.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Cnaan, Ram. 1991. "NeighborhoodRepresenting Organizations: How Democraticare they?" Social Service Review 65:614 - 634.

Couverthie, Alma and Marianna Leavy-Sperounis. 2006. "Budgeting for Democracy."Shelterforce Summer:8 - 11.

Cummings, Scott and Mark Glaser. 1985."Neighborhood Participation in CommunityDevelopment: A Comparison of StrategicApproaches." Population Research and PolicyReview, 1985, 4, 3, Oct 4:267-87.

Dahl, Robert A. 1970. After the Revolution;Authority in a Good Society. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.

DeFilippis, James. 2001. "The Myth of SocialCapital in Community Development." Housing


43 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Policy Debate 12.

Delgado, Gary. 1986. Organizing the Movement: The Roots and Growth of ACORN.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Evans, Sara M. and Harry C. Boyte. 1986. FreeSpaces : The Sources of Democratic Change inAmerica. New York: Harper & Row.

Faber, Daniel and Deborah McCarthy. 2005.Foundations for Social Change : CriticalPerspectives on Philanthropy and PopularMovements. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & LittlefieldPublishers.

Fairfax, Allen N. 2005. "Challenging the Rules:The Merrimack Valley Project and theConstruction of Public Space.".

Ferguson, Ronald F. and William T. Dickens,editors. 1999. Urban Problems and CommunityDevelopment. Washington, D.C.: The BrookingsInstitution.

Fiorina, Morris P. and Theda Skocpol. 1999.Civic Engagement in American Democracy.


44 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Washington, D.C.; New York: BrookingsInstitution Press; Russell Sage Foundation.

Fisher, Robert. 1994. Let the People Decide :Neighborhood Organizing in America. New York:$bTwayne Publishers ; Toronto; New York:Maxwell Macmillan Canada; Maxwell MacmillanInternational.

Gecan, Michael. 2002. Going Public. Boston:Beacon Press.

Gittell, Ross J. and Avis Vidal. 1998. CommunityOrganizing : Building Social Capital as aDevelopment Strategy. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:Sage Publications.

Glickman, Norman and Lisa J. Servon. 2003."By the Numbers: Measuring CommunityDevelopment Corporations' Capacity." Journal ofPlanning Education and Research 22:240 - 256.

Goetz, Edward G. and Mara Sidney. 1995."Community Development Corporations asNeighborhood Advocates: A Study of thePolitical Activism of Nonprofit Developers."


45 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Applied Behavioral Science Review 3:1-20.

Green, Gary P. and Anna Haines. 2002. AssetBuilding & Community Development. ThousandOaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Grogan, Paul S. and Tony Proscio. 2000.Comeback Cities : A Blueprint for UrbanNeighborhood Revival. Boulder, Colo.: WestviewPress.

Hadrian, Ricanne. 1988. "Combining Organizingand Housing Development: Conflictive YetSynergistic.".

Halpern, Robert. 1995. Rebuilding the Inner City: A History of Neighborhood Initiatives toAddress Poverty in the United States. New York:Columbia University Press.

Hunt, Valerie H. 2004. "Community DevelopmentCorporations and Public Policymaking:Inclusiveness and Effectiveness." University ofArkansas, United States -- Arkansas.

Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of GreatAmerican Cities. New York: Vintage Books.


46 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Kahn, Si. 1991. Organizing, a Guide forGrassroots Leaders. Silver Spring, MD: NASWPress.

Keating, W. D. 1997. "The CDC Model of UrbanDevelopment, a Reply to Randy Stoecker."Journal of Urban Affairs 19:29-33.

Keating, W. D., Philip Star and NormanKrumholz. 1996. Revitalizing UrbanNeighborhoods. Lawrence: University Press ofKansas.

Knotts, H. G. 2006. "Sticks, Bricks, and SocialCapital: The Challenge of CommunityDevelopment Corporations in the AmericanDeep South." Community Development Journal41:37-49.

La Piana, David. 2003. "Comment on William M.Rohe and Rachel G. Bratt's "Failures,Downsizings and Mergers among CDC": Mergerdoes Not Mean Failure." Housing Policy Debate14:57 - 68.

Mandell, Joyce L. 1993. "CDCs and the NIMBY


47 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Phenomenon: A Case Study of a LegitimationCrisis.".

Mansbridge, Jane J. 1980. Beyond AdversaryDemocracy. New York: Basic Books.

Martin, Deborah G. 2003. "Place Framing asPlace Making: Constituting a Neighborhood forOrganizing and Activism." Annals of theAssociation of American Geographers 93:730 -750.

McKnight, John. 1991. "Services are Bad forPeople: You'Re either a Citizen Or a Client."Organizing Spring/Summer:41 - 44.

Medoff, Peter and Holly Sklar. 1994. Streets ofHope : The Fall and Rise of an UrbanNeighborhood. Boston, MA: South End Press.

Mondros, Jacqueline B. and Scott M. Wilson.1994. Organizing for Power and Empowerment/Jacqueline B. Mondros and Scott M. Wilson.New York: Columbia University Press.

Murphy, Patricia W. and James V. Cunningham.2003. Organizing for Community Controlled


48 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Development : Renewing Civil Society.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Nye, Norman and Norman Glickman. 2000."Working Together: Building Capacity forCommunity Development." Housing PolicyDebate 11:163-198.

Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation andDemocratic Theory. Cambridge Eng.: UniversityPress.

Peirce, Neal R. and Carol F. Steinbach. 1987.Corrective Capitalism: The Rise of America'sCommunity Development Corporations: AReport to the Ford Foundation. New York: FordFoundation.

Perry, Stewart E. and Center for CommunityEconomic Development. 1973. Federal Supportfor CDCs : Some of the History and Issues ofCommunity Control. Cambridge, Mass.: Centerfor Community Economic Development.

Plastrik, Peter and Madeleine Taylor. 2004."Lawrence Community Works: Using the Power


49 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

of Networks to Restore A City A Report for theBarr Foundation.".

------.2006. Net Gains: A Handbook for NetworkBuilders Seeking Social Change.

------.December 7, 2004. "Network DevelopmentMeeting.".

Putnam, Robert D. 1995. "Bowling Alone,Revisited." The Responsive CommunitySpring:18 - 33.

------.2001. Bowling Alone : The Collapse andRevival of American Community. New York:Simon & Schuster.

Putnam, Robert D., Robert Leonardi andRaffaella Nanetti. 1993. Making DemocracyWork : Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Renauer, Brian C. 2001. "Why Get Involved?Examining the Motivational, Identity, andIdeological Aspects of Resident Involvement inPlace-Based Organizations." United States.


50 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Rivera, Felix G. and John Erlich. 1998.Community Organizing in a Diverse Society.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Rohe, William and Rachel G. Bratt. 2003."Failures, Downsizings and Mergers amongCommunity Development Corporations."Housing Policy Debate 14:1 - 46.

Rubin, Herbert J. 2000. Renewing Hope withinNeighborhoods of Despair : TheCommunity-Based Development Model. Albany:State University of New York Press.

Rubin, Herbert J. and Irene Rubin. 1986.Community Organizing and Development.Columbus Ohio: Charles E. Merrill PublishingCompany.

Silverman, Robert M. 2001. "CDCs andCharitable Organizations in the Urban South:Mobilizing Social Capital Based on Race andReligion for Neighborhood Revitalization."Journal of Contemporary Ethnography30:240-68.


51 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

------.2001. "Neighborhood Characteristics,Community Development Corporations and theCommunity Development Industry System: ACase Study of the American Deep South."Community Development Journal 36:234-45.

------.2003. "Progressive Reform, Gender andInstitutional Structure: A Critical Analysis ofCitizen Participation in Detroit's CommunityDevelopment Corporations (CDCs)." UrbanStudies 40:2731-50.

------.2004. Community-Based Organizations :The Intersection of Social Capital and LocalContext in Contemporary Urban Society. Detroit:Wayne State University Press.

Sinclair, Upton. 1971. The Jungle. Cambridge,Mass.: R. Bentley.

Sirianni, Carmen and Lewis Friedland. 2001.Civic Innovation in America : CommunityEmpowerment, Public Policy, and the Movementfor Civic Renewal. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.


52 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Skocpol, Theda and Morris P. Fiorina. 1999.Civic Engagement in American Democracy.Washington, D.C.; New York: BrookingsInstitution Press; Russell Sage Foundation.

Smith, Jillaine, Martin Kearns and Allison Fine.2005. "Power to the Edges: Trends andOpportunities in Online Civic Engagement.".

Smock, Kristina. 2000. "Strategies of UrbanChange: A Comparative Analysis ofContemporary Models of Neighborhood-BasedCommunity Organizing." NorthwesternUniversity, United States -- Illinois.

------.2004. Democracy in Action : CommunityOrganizing and Urban Change. New York:Columbia University Press.

Steinbach, Carol F. 2007. "CommunityDevelopment Corporations in US CivilSociety.":1 - 17.

Stoecker, Randy. 1995. "The Myth of CommunityEmpowerment: Rethinking the CommunityDevelopment Corporation Model of Urban


53 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Redevelopment.".

------.1997. "The CDC Model of UrbanRedevelopment: A Critique and an Alternative."Journal of Urban Affairs 19:1-22.

------.1997. "Should we... could we... Change theCDC Model?, a Rejoinder." Journal of UrbanAffairs 19:35-44.

------.2001. "Power Or Programs? Two Paths toCommunity Development." Keynote toInternational Association for CommunityDevelopment Conference, New Zealand.

------.2001. "Report to the West Bank CDC;Communities, CDCs and CommunityOrganizing.", 2007.

------.2003. "Comment on William M. Rohe andRachel G. Bratt's "Failures, Downsizings andMergers among CDCs": Defending CDCs OrDefending Communities?" Housing PolicyDebate 14:47 - 56.

------.2003. "Understanding the Development-Organizing Dialectic." Journal of Urban Affairs


54 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

25:493-512.

Stout, Linda. 1996. Bridging the Class Divide :And Other Lessons for Grassroots Organizing.Boston: Beacon Press.

Temkin, Kenneth and William Rohe. 1998."Social Capital and Neighborhood Stability: AnEmpirical Investigation." Housing Policy Debate9:1.

The Urban Institute. 2005. The Impact ofCommunity Development Corporations on UrbanNeighborhoods. Washington, D.C.: The UrbanInstitute.

Tigan, Mark T. 2005. "Citizen Participation inUnited States Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment Programs: From the Great Societyto the New Federalism." University ofMassachusetts Amherst, United States --Massachusetts.

Traynor, William. "Community Building: Hopeand Caution." Shelterforce Online.

------."Comprehensive Community Initiative:


55 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Preparing for Change." Shelterforce Online.

------.2002. "Reflections on CommunityOrganizing and Resident Engagement in theRebuilding Community Initiative." Annie E.Casey Foundation.

------.unpublished, 2007. "Community Building:Limitations and Promise.".

Traynor, William and Jessica Andors. 2005."Network Organizing: A Strategy for BuildingCommunity Engagement." ShelterforceMarch/April:8 - 11.

Twelvetrees, Alan C. 1996. Organizing forNeighbourhood Development : A ComparativeStudy of Community Based DevelopmentOrganizations. Aldershot, Hants, England ;Brookfield, USA: Avebury.

Walker, Christopher. 2002. CommunityDevelopment Corporations and their ChangingSupport Systems. Washington, D.C.: The UrbanInstitute.

Warren, Mark R. 2001. Dry Bones Rattling :


56 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Community Building to Revitalize AmericanDemocracy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UniversityPress.

Zdenek, Robert. 1990. "Taking Hold: The Growthand Support of Community DevelopmentCorporations.".

About the AuthorJoyce Mandell received her doctorate inSociology with a concentration in communitydevelopment from Boston College in 2008. Herdissertation, “Before, During and After Bricksand Mortar: Network Organizing as aCommunity Development Strategy” wasnominated for “Best Dissertation” in theGraduate School of Arts and Sciences in 2008.Currently, she is a Visiting Assistant Professor inUrban Studies and Sociology at Worcester StateCollege. Prior to her academic career, she had14 years experience, working as a communityorganizer and program manager at severalcommunity development corporations.


57 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM


58 of 58 12/22/09 10:47 AM

Documents

COMM-ORG Papers 2009 · 2012. 6. 4. · COMM-ORG Papers Volume 15, 2009 Papers Homepage CDCs and the Myth of the Organizing-Development Dialectic Joyce Mandell [email protected]